New EU Biocide Regulation Enters Into Force

The new Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) enters into force in the EU today, July 17, 2012. The BPR replaces the Biocidal Products Directive (BPD) that had been the law governing biocides. There will be a transition period for some biocidal products already in the review process, but the new BPR moves much of the responsibility for approving biocides to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).  ECHA is also responsible for REACH, the chemicals regulation.

As a regulation, the BPR goes into force in all of the EU immediately.  The previous Directive had to be implemented by individual member state action.

More information on the new Biocidal Products Regulation can be found on ECHA's web site.

EU Adds Five Pesticides to PIC, Japan Considers Three More Chemicals for Prior Informed Consent

The European Union (EU) voted last week to add five new pesticides to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) list under the Rotterdam Convention.  Meanwhile, Japan is considering the addition of three other pesticides to the PIC list.  The Rotterdam Convention stipulates that "severely hazardous pesticide formulations that present a hazard under conditions of use in developing countries or countries with economies in transition may also be nominated for inclusion in Annex III." Once listed a "decision guidance document" must be prepared that defines how the chemical will be banned or severely restricted.

The five pesticides added to the PIC list by the EU are guazatine, indolylactic acid, 1,3-dichloropropene, ethalfluralin, and thiobencarb.  Beginning on October 1st of this year these pesticides will be restricted for export to developing countries, i.e., the countries must be informed of the hazards prior to the sale and use in that country.  Meanwhile, last week also saw Japan propose to add alachlor (a herbicide) and aldicarb and endosulfan (both insecticides) to the PIC list.  Japan currently has restrictions on use and export of 36 chemicals under the Rotterdam Convention treaty.

The EU action followed on a decision not to include the five pesticides on the EU list of approved pesticides, which means they will be effectively banned from use in the EU.  This action was taken because no manufacturer successfully applied for continued authorization of these chemicals.

More information on the additions to the PIC list can be found in the Official Journal of the European Union or on the Rotterdam Convention home page.

Endosulfan to be Banned Under the Stockholm Convention

The widely used insecticide endosulfan is now on a path to be phased out and eventually banned under the Stockholm Convention, which is an international agreement designed to limit the use of chemicals that are considered persistent organic pollutants.  The decision was made in Geneva, Switzerland during meetings of the "Conference of the parties" held April 25-29, 2011. 

The Parties agreed to list endosulfan in Annex A to the Convention, with specific exemptions. When the amendment to the Annex A enters into force in one year, endosulfan will become the 22nd POP to be listed under the Convention. 

Annex A listing means that production, use, import, and export of the substance is banned.  This decision is a follow up to the recommendation by the POPs committee last fall.

The exemptions include a relatively long list of special cases requested by the two biggest users of endosulfan, i.e., India and China.  Endosulfan has been banned in about 80 countries because it is considered by many to be highly acutely toxic and an endocrine disrupter, as well as potentially very bioaccumulative.  The ban will take effect in 2012, with about 5 extra years available for the special case exemptions and to allow time to identify and develop safer alternatives.

More information is on the Stockholm Convention site.

Pesticide Trade Association Offers Their Insight Into Recent NGO Endangered Species Act Lawsuit

About 10 days ago I reported on a law suit filed by two NGOs in an attempt to force EPA to "consult" with the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on pesticide issues as required by the Endangered Species Act.  Now the major crop protection chemical (i.e., pesticide) trade association has weighed in on the suit.

The trade association, CropLife America, which "represents the developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of plant science solutions for agriculture and pest management in the United States," offered the following on their web site:

“The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an important legislative vehicle which helps facilitate the conservation of endangered plants and animals, yet the litigation filed by CBD and PANNA reflects the much larger issue: real ESA reform is required to protect endangered species,” said Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CLA. “However, litigation does not help to improve a system which can only be fixed through sound policy and legislation.”

CropLife America believes that, while the lawsuit "alleges that EPA has failed to consult with the...Services to ensure that crop protection products do not jeopardize endangered species," the NGOs "overlook the numerous benefits of modern agriculture, its rigorous regulatory oversight and proven role in protecting America’s wildlife."  In other words, think of all the good that pesticides do for society.  But there is more, obviously, to the story as CropLife and the NGOs differ dramatically on the value of pesticides.  CropLife believes that they allow for greater crop growth, which means greater and more efficient food production.  The NGOs believe that pesticides epitomize the problem of reliance on monoculture, which requires heavy chemical usage to combat the resulting pest species that would otherwise not be able to gain a foothold.


Both groups would agree that a better consultation process is needed.  The NGOs think that having EPA make what are essentially summary decisions by themselves is a conflict of interest since EPA also garners fees for registering pesticides.  CropLife believes that bringing in the Services creates a huge stranglehold on innovation and the ability to bring new, and presumably safer, products onto the market.  This argument has been going on for years and perhaps is the real reason behind the NGO law suit - to get a case that can cause there to be decisions made on how to proceed.  Clearly a more effective procedure, both from an efficiency standpoint and from a human health and the environment standpoint, is needed.

Two NGOs file suit against EPA for failure to consult on Endangered Species Act

On January 20, 2011, two NGOs filed "the most comprehensive legal action ever taken to protect endangered species from harmful pesticides. In the filing, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) accuse the USEPA of "registering and approving hundreds of pesticides known to harm imperiled species" without appropriate consultation with federal wildlife agencies. The lawsuit "seeks protection for 214 threatened or endangered species in 49 states and two U.S. territories."

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires EPA to undertake a formal consultation with other appropriate agencies responsible for protection of fish and wildlife, e.g., the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (commonly referred to as simply, "the services").  Over the years EPA has determined in many cases that the risk did not rise to the level of requiring outside consultation and that EPA had sufficient authority and practices under the FIFRA pesticide law to act.  However, CBD and PANNA charge that this practice is in violation of the ESA and favors the continued registration of pesticides that the services might otherwise deem to be too hazardous to fish and wildlife.

According to CBD,

The lawsuit seeks protection for 214 endangered and threatened species throughout the United States, including the Florida panther, California condor, piping plover, black-footed ferret, arroyo toad, Indiana bat, bonytail chub and Alabama sturgeon. Documents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, as well as peer-reviewed scientific studies, indicate these species are harmed by the pesticides at issue. More than a billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, and the EPA has registered more than 18,000 different pesticides for use. Extensive scientific studies show widespread and pervasive pesticide contamination in groundwater, drinking water and wildlife habitats throughout the country. 

CBD and others have successfully sued EPA in the past, forcing the agency to consult with the services and often resulting in the further limitation of pesticide use.  But "today’s litigation is the first on this scale, as it seeks nationwide compliance for hundreds of pesticides on hundreds of species"

An interactive map is available on the CBD web site.  Clicking on a state will bring up a list of endangered and threatened species that CBD and PANNA identify in their law suit as being at risk due to EPA's lack of consultation with the services.

Debbie Edwards Steps Down from Office of Pesticide Programs

Those in the pesticide registration business have heard of Debbie Edwards, Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs at the USEPA since April 2007. A few days ago she announced her retirement, which is seen as a loss by industry because she was considered to be reasonable and effective in moving decision-making forward. The following is the email that is being distributed widely around EPA and the regulated community.

From: Debbie Edwards/DC/USEPA/US

To: OPP ALL

Cc: xxxxxxxxxx

Date: 12/17/2009 04:53 PM

Subject: A message from the OPP Office Director


Dear Colleagues,


I have decided to retire from Federal Service to pursue other interests and to spend more time in Latin America. My last day in the office will be January 14, 2010. I have worked in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs since November of 1985 and have enjoyed a very fulfilling career. The work of OPP is challenging, always interesting and, in my view, of great importance to our society. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work closely with so many of you over the years in meeting and advancing our environmental protection goals. I leave with mixed emotions, as I believe it is a very exciting time to be in OPP. Through your efforts, the program is well on its way to increasing transparency; addressing long-standing environmental justice and children's health issues within the farmworker community; focusing greater attention on ecological risks and endangered species protection; bringing IPM practices to urban environments, including schools and day care centers; implementing the endocrine disrupter screening program; transitioning to 21st century toxicology and decreased animal testing; addressing human health risks associated with spray drift and volatilization; developing a framework for regulation of pesticide products that contain nanomaterials; more effectively incorporating human epidemiology data into the risk assessment process, and much more. I am confident you will continue to bring all of your energy, enthusiasm and expertise to bear in these challenging areas and that the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs will continue to be a world leader in pesticide regulation. I wish all of you the very best, both personally and professionally, in the years to come.


Debbie